If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will be required to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Is the NRA becoming the next PETA?

01-17-2013, 09:30 AM

First lets start by saying this is not about gun control. This topic is about the NRA's ability to further their cause outside of it's membership. This is not about which goal they pursue, this topic is about the method they use to achieve it? PETA for example have no problem using extreme and far fetched advertising to try and shock people into joining them. In recent times the NRA has suggest putting armed police in school, they have said that there are to many violent video games then release an app with human shaped targets... then they released an ad stating the President's Children have armed guards so why shouldn't all children?

EDIT:So the debate isn't weather or not NRA should or should not be promoting weapon ownership. If any of your future post address this than you're obviously not capable of debating this topic. This debate is weather or not the NRA is doing a good enough job and protecting it's members rights. Are their actions improving their situation or making it worse?

Comment

I renewed my membership with the NRA last night. I also ordered a few more speed loaders for my Taurus 357 7 shot revolver and another case of shells. I Like to target shoot.
Comparing the NRA to peta is stupid. The NRA stated facts, sorry if you don't like to hear the facts.

Is this the best you can do? Insult me personally instead of actually contributing something of merit to the discussion.

Perhaps you should go back and read my original post before you post again.

The topic is about how an organization presents it's self and whether or not what they are doing is causing them harm or making things better for themselves regardless of their cause.

Personally I feel their approach undermines their credibility outside their membership. When they are saying because a Presidents (Forget OBAMA AS THIS HAS ALWAYS APPLIED TO ALL PRESIDENTS FAMILIES) children get protection than why not all children.

Do you agree or disagree that this type of remark is making a stretch between two very different situations.

Imo, the remark is damaging and loses them credibility because that statement does not grasp the fact that the president's family is a very high profile target vs ordinary citizens.

I renewed my membership with the NRA last night. I also ordered a few more speed loaders for my Taurus 357 7 shot revolver and another case of shells. I Like to target shoot.
Comparing the NRA to peta is stupid. The NRA stated facts, sorry if you don't like to hear the facts.

A taurus 357, nice weapon, a bit big and clunky imo but it definitely has that look... you know the look where once seen, it implies the perp will **** his pants before you have a chance to pull the trigger..

As for the comparison to PETA, yes that is more of a headline grabber but if you are going to call it stupid than exactly what about the comparison do you feel is stupid? To be fair PETA also states many facts which they have collected but because of what they say, the timing of it, they are loosing their credibility in the public eye. PETA is known to make stretching connections in their advertising to further their cause but in the end, people are more turned off than inspired.

So the debate isn't weather or not NRA should or should not be promoting weapon ownership. If any of your future post address this than you're obviously not capable of debating this topic. This debate is weather or not the NRA is doing a good enough job and protecting it's members rights. Are their actions improving their situation or making it worse?

If you take the stance public opinion doesn't matter than I suggest you think again. It's public opinion that will lead to a slew of upcoming changes to gun legislation. Is the NRA doing enough to win the support of the public and curb this growing public opinion (weather that opinion is right or wrong isn't the debate) that they are the problem?

Comment

The NRA is doing what it's supposed to do, protect our rights. In the last 30 days the NRA has received over 250,000 NEW memberships. So is what they're doing damaging themselves or their reputation? No, it doesn't look that way does it. The gun ban will not pass. Clinton already tried it in 1994 and for 10 years the ban was in place. It did nothing.
Still, comparing the NRA to peta? Yes that's stupid and I'm not going to get sucked into a debate about it.

The NRA is doing what it's supposed to do, protect our rights. In the last 30 days the NRA has received over 250,000 NEW memberships. So is what they're doing damaging themselves or their reputation? No, it doesn't look that way does it. The gun ban will not pass. Clinton already tried it in 1994 and for 10 years the ban was in place. It did nothing.
Still, comparing the NRA to peta? Yes that's stupid and I'm not going to get sucked into a debate about it.

That's a lot of new members. This definitely shows they are reaching gun owners in terms of appealing to people who already like them. If that number is correct than I agree that the reputation of the NRA for those people does not look damaged at all.

For the most part the NRA up until recently imo has been doing a decent job at meeting it's mandate but as of late I am questioning their ability to negotiate the public backlash they are receiving.

You say "the gun ban", what exactly do you mean by this? By gun are you referencing all weapons? semi-autos? Military style weapons? Clip sizes etc? To be so vague makes your remark difficult to respond to. Regardless, I do know some changes will be implemented if for no other reason than to appease the public.

Which adds to my point, is the NRA doing enough to control the growing negative public opinion of them by people who up until now have been either indifferent or uninterested in their mandate? Again if you think these non-membered people do not matter than turn on your tv, open a browser, it's these people who are currently pushing for more gun control etc.

First lets start by saying this is not about gun control. This topic is about the NRA's ability to further their cause outside of it's membership. This is not about which goal they pursue, this topic is about the method they use to achieve it? PETA for example have no problem using extreme and far fetched advertising to try and shock people into joining them. In recent times the NRA has suggest putting armed police in school, they have said that there are to many violent video games then release an app with human shaped targets... then they released an ad stating the President's Children have armed guards so why shouldn't all children?

EDIT:So the debate isn't weather or not NRA should or should not be promoting weapon ownership. If any of your future post address this than you're obviously not capable of debating this topic. This debate is weather or not the NRA is doing a good enough job and protecting it's members rights. Are their actions improving their situation or making it worse?

Major difference between the two. The NRA is promoting an individual's legal gun ownership on a voluntary basis. As far as I know, they have never forced anyone to do anything against their will. The big battle over the last few decades is the promoting and protection of our Second Amendments rights. Everytime I get disalusioned with the over the top attitude of some in the NRA, the gun grabbeds get worse and I stick with the NRA. On the other hand PETA is attempting to prevent people from participating is legal activites. Unlike the NRA, PETA has been known to commit criminal activity and vandalism to make their point.

That's a lot of new members. This definitely shows they are reaching gun owners in terms of appealing to people who already like them. If that number is correct than I agree that the reputation of the NRA for those people does not look damaged at all.

For the most part the NRA up until recently imo has been doing a decent job at meeting it's mandate but as of late I am questioning their ability to negotiate the public backlash they are receiving.

You say "the gun ban", what exactly do you mean by this? By gun are you referencing all weapons? semi-autos? Military style weapons? Clip sizes etc? To be so vague makes your remark difficult to respond to. Regardless, I do know some changes will be implemented if for no other reason than to appease the public.

Which adds to my point, is the NRA doing enough to control the growing negative public opinion of them by people who up until now have been either indifferent or uninterested in their mandate? Again if you think these non-membered people do not matter than turn on your tv, open a browser, it's these people who are currently pushing for more gun control etc.

If you truely do not understand which guns were banned and for what reason on both a local and fereral basis you don't understand guns. Ths forum alone could not possibly educate you on that. You may want to look at some ot the regulations.

Is this the best you can do? Insult me personally instead of actually contributing something of merit to the discussion.

Perhaps you should go back and read my original post before you post again.

The topic is about how an organization presents it's self and whether or not what they are doing is causing them harm or making things better for themselves regardless of their cause.

Personally I feel their approach undermines their credibility outside their membership. When they are saying because a Presidents (Forget OBAMA AS THIS HAS ALWAYS APPLIED TO ALL PRESIDENTS FAMILIES) children get protection than why not all children.

Do you agree or disagree that this type of remark is making a stretch between two very different situations.

Imo, the remark is damaging and loses them credibility because that statement does not grasp the fact that the president's family is a very high profile target vs ordinary citizens.

Yes ,You're too far away

I can build anything You want , if you draw a picture of it , on the back of a big enough check .

Comment

The NRA is doing what it's supposed to do, protect our rights. In the last 30 days the NRA has received over 250,000 NEW memberships. .

Personally, I find statistics like that one to be totally pointless. 250,000 new memberships means squat unless it is also accompanied by the number of cancelled/non-renewed memberships in the same time frame. PETA and the NRA are basically identical where what they are is concerned. Although their agendas are certainly different, the way they try and get their message across is similar in many ways. As far as credibility of either group is concerned, they are only credible to those who agree with them.

================================================== ====
~~Don't worry about old age; it doesn't last that long.

Major difference between the two. The NRA is promoting an individual's legal gun ownership on a voluntary basis. As far as I know, they have never forced anyone to do anything against their will. The big battle over the last few decades is the promoting and protection of our Second Amendments rights. Everytime I get disalusioned with the over the top attitude of some in the NRA, the gun grabbeds get worse and I stick with the NRA. On the other hand PETA is attempting to prevent people from participating is legal activites. Unlike the NRA, PETA has been known to commit criminal activity and vandalism to make their point.

Mark

Excellent response Mark. I agree whole heartily on the fundamental differences in the two organizations. My comparison with PETA wasn't so much about PETA's mandate but more so about how they interact with the public. How do you feel about the way the NRA has been handling the current public relations predicament they are now facing? Do you think their latest actions are helping or hurting their mandate and protecting second amendment rights?

If you truely do not understand which guns were banned and for what reason on both a local and fereral basis you don't understand guns. Ths forum alone could not possibly educate you on that. You may want to look at some ot the regulations.

Mark

I was asking for his interpretation of "the gun ban" as it relates to what is being discussed now. There are so many people throwing around what they want banded I didn't want to speak about banning semi-automatic weapons (which will never happen) if he meant banning military style/looking weapons (which may very well happen because there is enough public pressure to make this happen).

In any event, what's being banned(if anything) is not the topic and I'm hoping this doesn't derail the debate.

Personally, I find statistics like that one to be totally pointless. 250,000 new memberships means squat unless it is also accompanied by the number of cancelled/non-renewed memberships in the same time frame. PETA and the NRA are basically identical where what they are is concerned. Although their agendas are certainly different, the way they try and get their message across is similar in many ways. As far as credibility of either group is concerned, they are only credible to those who agree with them.

Thanks for the reply. Your response is similar to the point I'm trying to make. Is the way they have been delivering their messages, the content of the messages and the timing of their actions putting themselves in a category similar to organizations such as PETA when it comes to the public's perception of them.

Comment

I think I understand your post. The NRA, like PETA is promoting their agenda to the best of their ability. You may find their comparisson between the President's children benefitting from armed guards as opposed to all children absurd and insulting, while many law abiding gun owners find his parading of children during a news conference to further his agenda equally absurd and insulting to the issue. If the President's plan does not make children safer then why is the NRA at fault for speaking out? Ultimately, do you care more about the NRA's image, the President's image and feeling, or the safety of the American public and our children?
If you really care about the safety of the innocent above all else, then in my opinion you go after the things that will make a change!
Stop the plea bargaining of violent criminals, stop paroling convicted murderers, make birth control accessable to all and "Mandatory" for those who have children they cannot afford and do not want to parent! You need to change the society, not the legal access to weapons because the illegal access combined with a decaying society is the problem.

I think I understand your post. The NRA, like PETA is promoting their agenda to the best of their ability. You may find their comparisson between the President's children benefitting from armed guards as opposed to all children absurd and insulting, while many law abiding gun owners find his parading of children during a news conference to further his agenda equally absurd and insulting to the issue.

Thank you for the reply.
I just added a link to the NRA video on page 1 of my original post.

Frank, the issue I have with the NRA comparing the safety of the presidents children against ordinary citizens is it's lack of correlation for what is in fact two completely different situations and scenarios. Lumping those together is similar to showing a baby on a plate at Thanksgiving like PETA does. For me, the fact the NRA doesn't see this huge gap in the difference and is encouraging people to just accept they are the same when clearly they are not, hurts the legitimate context of their message which is the safety of children. The ad comes off more as an attack on Obama instead of dealing with the safety of children. IMO this type of behavior does the NRA no good and makes them look like a bunch of unrealistic and irrational people which is a shame as they are representing the interest of nearly 4.5million people. I guess the question boils down to this... Is this the best of the NRA's ability to promote their mandate and is it working?

If the President's plan does not make children safer then why is the NRA at fault for speaking out?

No one is saying the NRA is at fault for speaking out. Whats at debate here though is weather they are doing themselves any good when they do? After watching that video, I personally feel they are failing and need some work when it comes to PR. Unless your delusional and haven't looked at a newspaper, turned on your TV or opened a browser it the last few years, it is quite evident the NRA has a PR issue.

Ultimately, do you care more about the NRA's image, the President's image and feeling, or the safety of the American public and our children?

Image is everything when it comes to companies and organizations. You could have the cure for cancer and no one will listen to you if ever person you try and tell about it begins with the words, a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away... you would be dismissed as a goof before you ever got a chance.

IMO when the NRA does stuff like this, they hurt themselves. Forget what everyone else is doing, the president, PETA etc. At the end of the day, when they do stuff like this, the public reacts negatively and in doing so, any future messages, no matter how important or poignant gets dismissed as more NRA rhetoric and is not taken seriously.

Stop the plea bargaining of violent criminals, stop paroling convicted murderers, make birth control accessable to all and "Mandatory" for those who have children they cannot afford and do not want to parent! You need to change the society, not the legal access to weapons because the illegal access combined with a decaying society is the problem.

Frank I agree, there should be more focus on the other issues which contribute to the problems in society. Dealing with many of those would be a bigger step imo towards a solution instead of just banning legally acquired firearms.